Statement by Jack Dowding …

Statement by

Jack Dowding

Executive Chairman

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers –

Electrical Power Council of Ontario (IBEW-EPCO)

My name is Jack Dowding.  I am the Executive Chairman of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers – Electrical Power Council of Ontario.  The union locals that are affiliated to our organization represent 17,000 skilled men and women who are employed in the electrical industry in Ontario.  Our members work in construction, maintenance, renovation and retrofitting in every sector in Ontario.  We also install and maintain transmission and distribution lines and we have installed a significant amount of Ontario’s new solar and wind generation capacity.

We appreciate the opportunity that you have given us to share our views with you on Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan.

Let me say from the start that our organization, our affiliated union locals and our members support the objectives of Ontario’s green energy plan.  We applaud the provincial government for leading the way in North America by shutting down all of Ontario’s coal-burning generators.  Of course, there will be problems along the way but the path that the government has chosen is the correct path.  We must reduce green-house gases and to accomplish that, we must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

In my remarks to you today, I want to focus on three issues or themes.  The first of these is what we see as a tension between the important commitment to reduce the role of fossil fuels in meeting the province’s overall energy requirements and the need for a much clearer vision of the alternative strategy to meet those energy requirements.  Ontario’s Five-Year Climate Change Action Plan envisions an Ontario which will substantially reduce its reliance on fossil fuels to meet the province’s energy needs.  The Action Plan also envisions a concurrent increase in the use of electricity to meet those energy needs.  The Action Plan is clear in its intention to bring about a greater role for electricity in heating buildings, both residential and non-residential and in meeting the energy needs of our transportation sector.  The shift to greater reliance on electricity inevitably raises the question: how will that electricity be generated.  While we strongly support increased generation from renewable resources, we do not believe that renewable sources can be expanded sufficiently to meet the increased role that electricity will play in a low carbon future.

We need; therefore, a much clearer picture of what Ontario’s strategy will be to bring increased generation capacity on line and to deliver that energy efficiently and reliably.

That takes me to the second point that I would like to make;

Nuclear power today accounts for somewhat more than 60% of the electricity that we generate.  It is difficult to see a future in which the role of electricity will increase, but the role of our nuclear sector will not.  The government has indicated a timetable for refurbishing our existing nuclear reactors, although support appears tepid for arrangements beyond Unit 2 at Darlington nuclear Generating Station.

There are two reasons to bring the refurbishing timetable forward.  The first is interest rates. Long-term interest rates are currently at historic lows.  No one expects these conditions to continue indefinitely.  The interest rate is a major factor in the financing costs for refurbishment.  In our view the government should take advantage of the low interest rates that currently prevail to bring forward the refurbishment timetable.  The apparent savings from delaying the refurbishment will be more than offset by the higher financing costs that will prevail in future years.

The second reason to consider bringing the refurbishment timetable forward is the availability of labour and contracting capacity.  The downturn in the Alberta energy sector means that there is capacity available.  Ontario will not be competing with Alberta’s energy sector for materials and manpower which was, until recently, the single most important factor shaping construction costs in Canada.  However, the downturn in Alberta is cyclical.  Oil prices have been edging up.  When producers can be confident that prices will stay above $60 per barrel, the construction cycle in Alberta’s energy sector will resume.

By bringing the refurbishment timetable forward, Ontario can avoid some of the costs that will inevitably arise when large-scale projects in Ontario must compete with large-scale projects in Alberta for skilled labour and skilled contractors.  By taking advantage of current economic and financial conditions, the government will achieve important, long-term cost savings.  The government will also ensure that we have the low carbon generating capacity that Ontario needs to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Ontario cannot achieve its objective of increasing the role of electricity in our energy supply without ensuring the continued reliability and efficiency of our nuclear power fleet.  We strongly believe that the government should give serious consideration to bringing forward the timetable to refurbish our nuclear assets.

The third topic that I want to raise with you is conservation and, more particularly, the need to remove obstacles to investments in conservation.  The typical commercial tenancy agreement and a great many residential tenancy agreements pass the cost of utilities on to the tenant.  Aside from changing the lighting and time of use, there is often very little that a tenant can do to conserve on the use of energy.   A tenant cannot invest in insulation; nor can a tenant invest in more energy efficient mechanical systems.  In many residential tenancies, the appliances are owned by the landlord.  The majority of tenants, whether they are commercial tenants or residential tenants, bear the burden of inefficient buildings and appliances.  In the residential sector, a significant number of tenants are in the lower income groups.  It is unfair to tenants to raise the cost of energy when they have no realistic way to deal with energy inefficient buildings, energy inefficient mechanical systems and energy inefficient appliances.   Improvements there may involve incentives or penalties that are delivered through the tax system.  It could involve direct grants or property tax surcharges. Perhaps there should be a requirement that landlords pay a portion of the utility costs in the buildings that they own.  We acknowledge that the government has put some incentives in place.  These incentives do not appear to be commensurate with the scale of the upgrade investments that will be required in the rented building stock. The government needs to take steps to incent or to force landlords to make the investments that are needed.

We don’t know what the best solution would be but what we do know is that if Ontario is to achieve its goal of making buildings more energy efficient, we must find a way to incentivize landlords to make the investments that are needed in energy efficient structures, energy efficient mechanical systems, and energy efficient appliances and lighting systems.

I want to conclude my remarks by reiterating the points with which I began.    The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers – Construction Council of Ontario and the Electrical Power Council of Ontario, support the objectives of Ontario’s green energy plan.  We support the decision to shut down all coal-burning generators.

What we hope emerges from these consultations is the reception of a clear message to the government that we the citizens, need a much clearer picture of what Ontario’s strategy will be to bring increased generation capacity on line and to deliver that electricity efficiently, economically and reliably.  We believe the government needs to develop a system that compels landlords to install energy efficient structures, mechanical systems, appliances and lighting systems. We do not see how the role of electricity can be increased in Ontario’s overall energy usage without utilizing the full capacity from our nuclear generating plants.  And as previously suggested, we believe the government should seriously consider bringing forward the refurbishment timetable.

And on a regional note (for the Pembroke & Ottawa sessions), investment in the Chalk River facility would be welcomed by everyone employed and affected by its operation. The expertise that is currently still available would be exceedingly difficult to replace if it were allowed to disperse.

This region is also a leader in solar farm assets, for the obvious reasons. As long as nature continues to cooperate, both wind and solar projects are welcome and supported as part of the LTEP. Thank you again for affording us the opportunity to share our views.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Dowding

Executive Chairman

IBEW Electrical Power Council of Ontario

Tel:  416-674-6940 ext 231

Fax: 416 674 9541

Cell: 416-999-6055

[Original Comment ID: 202520]